Geography According to ChatGPT -- How Generative AI Represents and Reasons about Geography

Google Earth AI is a family of geospatial AI models, together with an agent that orchestrates them. We present this agent, Google Earth AI's Geospatial Reasoning agent (GRA), a Gemini-powered research system that combines geospatial data sources, foundation models, and tools to answer questions about our planet. GRA organizes these into modular domain skills and pairs them with upfront geospatial planning to decompose complex queries into multi-stage workflows. Evaluating such systems is hard: real-world problems admit multiple valid workflows, require data discovery across large catalogs, and rely on evolving ground truth. We introduce two benchmarks and release their development splits. GeoExpertQueries poses complex analytical problems grounded in practitioner use cases and refined by geospatial experts; each is paired with a consensus golden workflow from three independent experts and scored by a human-validated, tool-agnostic autorater. GeoKTools consists of templated queries with deterministic reference solvers that systematically vary the number of required tool types. We also use two external benchmarks, CBGB and UnivEARTH; the latter we find to be saturated. To isolate the contribution of GRA's tools and its agentic orchestration, we compare four configurations, each with Gemini 3.1 Pro and 3.8 Flash: a standalone LLM, the LLM with basic tools, the LLM with GRA's skills and tools but without its upfront planning and execution guidance, and GRA itself. With at most basic tools, an advanced model recovers much of the answer on templated queries but satisfies only a small fraction of the expert workflows on open-ended problems; GRA performs well on both. The largest step comes from GRA's skills and tools; on open-ended problems, its planning and execution guidance add a further gain with Gemini 3.8 Flash, letting Flash match or exceed Pro at lower cost.

Geospatial reasoning, i.e., computing distances, containment, and other spatial relations over real-world entities, is central to navigation and logistics, yet large language models (LLMs) struggle with the required geometric and topological computation despite storing considerable geographic knowledge. Existing benchmarks localize these failures only partially: they are synthetic or smallscale, largely monolingual, and offer limited control over geographic coverage. We introduce MultiGlobeQA, a multilingual benchmark of 46,060 question-answer pairs spanning 14 spatial-function families and 15 answer formats, with execution-based ground truth over three knowledge graphs. It covers 201 countries and territories via income- and density-stratified sampling, with parallel questions in English and 16 additional high- and low-resource languages. Across parametric, reasoning, and agentic settings, LLMs collapse on tasks requiring grid indexing and shape computation, while topological relations and directions fare best. Retrieval and tool use yield considerable gains, yet performance plateaus below two thirds even when gold facts are supplied, indicating that computation, not access to knowledge, is the bottleneck. Models also underperform on low-income regions, a gap that gold facts widen rather than close.

Large language models (LLMs) encode substantial latent geographic knowledge, yet they reason poorly over space and are unreliable when queried from coordinates alone. Useful behaviour emerges only when structured spatial context is supplied in the prompt. This raises a question geographic evaluation has left unexamined: once the right context is supplied, does the model reason from it, or override it with its own parametric recall? We take up this question with an open pipeline for network-based spatial context retriev-al. In it, the surroundings of a selected point are defined by the pedestrian street network, the area actually reachable on foot. Using only open data and open-weight models, the pipeline retrieves features from OpenStreetMap and the GHS-POP population grid, computes indicators over the network catchment in code, and injects them as a compact spatial brief. On this basis we build a faithfulness benchmark. It labels every claim a model makes by its source (grounded in the brief, or drawn from training knowledge) and its correctness, and it probes each case with a planted false premise that the brief refutes. We evaluate sixteen open-weight model configurations across three families (Qwen, Gemma and Llama, with Gemma in two generations), four size classes and, where available, both thinking and non-thinking modes, on three con-trasting cities, resampling every case over ten seeds. The results show that resistance to the planted premise varies more strongly by model family and generation than by scale, while brief-reading competence forms a partly separate dimension. These behaviours are not captured by conventional world-correctness scores or single-shot evaluation. We release the implementation, spatial briefs, model outputs, and claim-level labels as a reproducible workflow at github.com/perezjoan/NSCR-LLM.